Climate Change

**jockser** · 19/03/2008, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by jebus

Are you actually suggesting that the industrial revolution and it's subsequent fallout have not had any effect on the warming process?

can you expain why in medieval times the earths temperature and climate was warmer than today? Were they running around then charging everyone for carbon taxes?? No it was due to solar output.

**jebus** · 19/03/2008, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by jockser

can you expain why in medieval times the earths temperature and climate was warmer than today? Were they running around then charging everyone for carbon taxes?? No it was due to solar output.

Output that increased over a longer period of time than our own, they never had as sharp a jump in temperature as we have had, that's the difference between then and now, not if they ever had climate change or not

**jockser** · 19/03/2008, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by jebus

Output that increased over a longer period of time than our own, they never had as sharp a jump in temperature as we have had, that's the difference between then and now, not if they ever had climate change or not

never? incorrect. the earths temperature went form -50c to +50 in 100 years granted it was a few million years ago but never is a false statement. Also the fact that it was warmer back then and the human race is still around and hasnt been destroyed makes a mockery of the latest fear mongering

**John83** · 19/03/2008, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by jockser

can you expain why in medieval times the earths temperature and climate was warmer than today? Were they running around then charging everyone for carbon taxes?? No it was due to solar output.

Why do you think it was warmer in 'medieval times'? Which medieval times are these? There's a well known and oft quoted 'medieval warm period', but the science behind it is pretty poor. At best, it's a regional warm period, which is far from the same thing. Even so, even the most generous estimates of temperature in that period put it as cooler than the current global average.

Solar output is interesting, oscillating on a whole pile of different cycles. It explains some of the variations on global temperature over time. It's certainly taken account of in the climate prediction models, which means that it's already been discounted as wholly causing current temperature changes.

**GavinZac** · 19/03/2008, 12:39 PM

Why is it that some people can't grasp that 'global warming' doesn't mean "everywhere will get warmer"

**jebus** · 19/03/2008, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by jockser

never? incorrect. the earths temperature went form -50c to +50 in 100 years granted it was a few million years ago but never is a false statement. Also the fact that it was warmer back then and the human race is still around and hasnt been destroyed makes a mockery of the latest fear mongering

In medieval times they never had that jump was what I was saying, as you well know

**jockser** · 19/03/2008, 1:02 PM

Originally Posted by John83

Why do you think it was warmer in 'medieval times'? Which medieval times are these? There's a well known and oft quoted 'medieval warm period', but the science behind it is pretty poor. At best, it's a regional warm period, which is far from the same thing. Even so, even the most generous estimates of temperature in that period put it as cooler than the current global average.

ok this is incorrect, have you anything to back this statement up? the links i provide to peer reviewed scientific research explains why.

Why is it that some people can't grasp that 'global warming' doesn't mean "everywhere will get warmer"

Learn the difference between climate change, and man made global warming

In medieval times they never had that jump was what I was saying, as you well know

You missed my point. My point was the earth climate amd average temperature was warmer than today. Did they have to pay extra taxes for it? Was there world devestation? This jump in temperature you talk about over the last 100 years and just been totally wiped out by last years average temperature which had a huge drop (jump) downwards. How did this happen??? Was this MAN MADE?? No it was solar output

**GavinZac** · 19/03/2008, 1:14 PM

protip hotshot: when you're posting "proof" or references, use Google Scholar rather than Youtube.

**monutdfc** · 19/03/2008, 1:25 PM

Originally Posted by jockser

the links i provide to peer reviewed scientific research explains why.

I clicked on a couple of your links - one was a blog, one was an opinion piece. Peer reviewed scientific research?

**John83** · 19/03/2008, 1:27 PM

Originally Posted by jockser

ok this is incorrect, have you anything to back this statement up? the links i provide to peer reviewed scientific research explains why.

You liked to a US senate report, various newspaper articles and a bunch of youtube videos. There isn't a peer reviewed paper among the lot of them. Also, you made the claim, and a vague one at that. You back it up.

**jockser** · 19/03/2008, 1:29 PM

ah the good old (and embarrassing) "Youtube" rebuttal. 15 non youtube links and 4 youtube links.

Care to comment on the other 15 non youtube links ? Have you read any of them? Have you any scientific peer reviewed papers to present or just your sarcy remarks?

**GavinZac** · 19/03/2008, 1:33 PM

Originally Posted by jockser

ah the good old (and embarrassing) "Youtube" rebuttal. 15 non youtube links and 4 youtube links.

Care to comment on the other 15 non youtube links ? Have you read any of them? Have you any scientific peer reviewed papers to present or just your sarcy remarks?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,630,000 for climate change. (0.14 seconds)

Google Scholar is fantastic, you can look up millions of peer-reviewed facts in moments, rather than relying on youtube attention seekers, 'edgy' blogs and republican "news" sites. As for your '15 links', the majority of them relate to last years temperature which clearly belies your complete ignorance of the topic.

**John83** · 19/03/2008, 1:35 PM

Originally Posted by jockser

can you expain why in medieval times the earths temperature and climate was warmer than today? Were they running around then charging everyone for carbon taxes?? No it was due to solar output.

You make a bold claim, failing to back it up.

Originally Posted by John83

Why do you think it was warmer in 'medieval times'? Which medieval times are these? There's a well known and oft quoted 'medieval warm period', but the science behind it is pretty poor. At best, it's a regional warm period, which is far from the same thing. Even so, even the most generous estimates of temperature in that period put it as cooler than the current global average.

Solar output is interesting, oscillating on a whole pile of different cycles. It explains some of the variations on global temperature over time. It's certainly taken account of in the climate prediction models, which means that it's already been discounted as wholly causing current temperature changes.

I reply in kind.

Originally Posted by jockser

ok this is incorrect, have you anything to back this statement up? the links i provide to peer reviewed scientific research explains why.

I need peer reviewed science?

Originally Posted by John83

You liked to a US senate report, various newspaper articles and a bunch of youtube videos. There isn't a peer reviewed paper among the lot of them. Also, you made the claim, and a vague one at that. You back it up.

Originally Posted by jockser

ah the good old (and embarrassing) "Youtube" rebuttal. 15 non youtube links and 4 youtube links.

Care to comment on the other 15 non youtube links ? Have you read any of them? Have you any scientific peer reviewed papers to present or just your sarcy remarks?

Again, I need peer reviewed science? Your non-youtube links are newspaper articles and blogs. Back up that first claim, mister Pot.

**jockser** · 19/03/2008, 1:41 PM

Originally Posted by John83

You liked to a US senate report, various newspaper articles and a bunch of youtube videos. There isn't a peer reviewed paper among the lot of them. Also, you made the claim, and a vague one at that. You back it up.

You abviously have not read all the links, there are peer reviewed papers in there. Im not your secretary go and have a look yourself. (hint link with pdf in it is a start)Or dont as the case may be and focus on what i claim. But above all avoid what the scientists are claiming in the links.

Im not going to be replying to all these smart comments individually, that dont address the articles and research presented but are aimed at the messenger. I have presented to you papers and research and artices from scientists that are not been reported about in the main stream irish media. Read them. If you think its bull**** and believe Al Gore then so be it. Explain where and why the scientists are wrong and we can have a debate.

Originally Posted by GavinZac

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...r=&btnG=Search
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,630,000 for climate change. (0.14 seconds)

Google Scholar is fantastic, you can look up millions of peer-reviewed facts in moments, rather than relying on youtube attention seekers, 'edgy' blogs and republican "news" sites. As for your '15 links', the majority of them relate to last years temperature which clearly belies your complete ignorance of the topic.

again learn the difference between climate change and man made global warming. Ignorance is bliss isnt it

**GavinZac** · 19/03/2008, 1:47 PM

Originally Posted by jockser

If you think its bull**** and believe Al Gore then so be it. Explain where and why the scientists are wrong and we can have a debate.

Al Gore is not the one doing the scientific research, he used his high profile to attempt to dispell some of the myths around it. The 1.6 million papers on it are by scientists or researchers - it would be interesting to see what percentage of them are disbelieving.

One or two papers disbelieving something is not a basis to call everything else bull****. David Irvining doesn't get away with it, Gavin Menzies doesn't get away with it and string theorists did not get away with it; something passing peer review needs to be taken in context of consensus; When one or two papers on something disagree with the rest, its an even surer acknowledgment that they are incorrect than if there were no papers on it at all; if they had made quality papers there would be thousands of people looking to 'expand' upon their research for their own purposes. There are not.

**jockser** · 19/03/2008, 2:09 PM

Originally Posted by GavinZac

Al Gore is not the one doing the scientific research, he used his high profile to attempt to dispell some of the myths around it. The 1.6 million papers on it are by scientists or researchers - it would be interesting to see what percentage of them are disbelieving.

One or two papers disbelieving something is not a basis to call everything else bull****. David Irvining doesn't get away with it, Gavin Menzies doesn't get away with it and string theorists did not get away with it; something passing peer review needs to be taken in context of consensus; When one or two papers on something disagree with the rest, its an even surer acknowledgment that they are incorrect than if there were no papers on it at all; if they had made quality papers there would be thousands of people looking to 'expand' upon their research for their own purposes. There are not.

I somewhat agree and what you say here.

But here is your AL GORE hi profile presentation ripped apart
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

Despite Al Gore and the UN’s claim that the case is closed on global warming, there are dissenting voices! Besides last week’s conference in New York, besides the 400 skeptical scientists that signed the U.S. Senate minority report released a few months ago, countless other studies show dissent in the scientific community over man’s role in global warming. One Canadian survey of 51,000 earth scientists and engineers by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (apegga), released last week, showed that 68 percent disagreed with the statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.”

Near-unanimous?

Why wasnt this on your TV?

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjourna...ada5df&k=65311

edited.

**jmurphyc** · 19/03/2008, 2:19 PM

Most of the links you've posted are not peer reviewed. I only counted one. Four of them are from the national post, a newspaper which has been proved to write articles which don't have any facts to back up what they're writing:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post
One of the daily post links is merely a list of the signatories at a climate change conference; how the **** does that back up your article. Did you just google climate change and pick the first few links that came up?

**GavinZac** · 19/03/2008, 2:28 PM

Originally Posted by jockser

I somewhat agree and what you say here.

But here is your AL GORE hi profile presentation ripped apart
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

Despite Al Gore and the UN�s claim that the case is closed on global warming, there are dissenting voices! Besides last week�s conference in New York, besides the 400 skeptical scientists that signed the U.S. Senate minority report released a few months ago, countless other studies show dissent in the scientific community over man�s role in global warming. One Canadian survey of 51,000 earth scientists and engineers by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (apegga), released last week, showed that 68 percent disagreed with the statement that �the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.�

Near-unanimous?

Of course its "not settled". Scientists aren't theologians, they generally don't accept anything as finalised knowledge unless its a tested physical fact. It would be wrong to say the case is closed as to what exactly is causing climate change but the idea that CO2 emissions have nothing to do with it contradicts decades of research and is further sullied by coming from Republican sources.

In relative terms, 400 scientists believing something does not mean its even a recognisable minority. I'm fairly certain you could find 400 US scientists that believe 9-11 conspiracy theories, 400 scientists that believe man never reached the moon, and a fairly easy job finding 400 scientists that believe the earth is no more than 8000 years old. Unfortunately, by linking to sources like blogs and youtube videos, you place your arguments firmly in this category.

Why wasnt this on your TV?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/mo...oreerrors.html

Even the first point is full of weasel words and twisting. When you have sentences like "Though Gore does not say that the sea-level rise will occur in the near future, the judge found that, in the context, it was clear that this is what he had meant, since he showed expensive graphical representations of the effect of his imagined 6 m (20 ft) sea-level rise on existing populations, and he quantified the numbers who would be displaced by the sea-level rise" you know people are grasping at straws. He used pictures and an absolute minimum estimation of the population in future times (hint: population goes up in the long run), so this means he's talking of The Day After Tomorrow?

I have no wish to experience another Loose Change.

**jockser** · 19/03/2008, 2:33 PM

Originally Posted by jmurphyc

Most of the links you've posted are not peer reviewed. I only counted one. Four of them are from the national post, a newspaper which has been proved to write articles which don't have any facts to back up what they're writing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post

you do know how wiki[edia works right?

One of the daily post links is merely a list of the signatories at a climate change conference; how the **** does that back up your article. Did you just google climate change and pick the first few links that came up?

Those signatures come from this open letter.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
Now if you had actually read the links you would have known that instead of that embarrassing comment

**jmurphyc** · 19/03/2008, 2:39 PM

Originally Posted by jockser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Post[/url]

you do know how wiki[edia works right?
Those signatures come from this open letter.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
Now if you had actually read the links you would have known that instead of that embarrassing comment

Well perhaps you should have linked to that instead of the signatories page, otherwise it makes you look stupid. I'm going to read your peer reviewed link later, but the fact that you've only provided one and the rest is all blogs is a lot. I don't really pay too much attention to climate change, but a lot of the articles that you've linked to (I've read a few of them) seem to be based purely on assumption.